A Cheney of thought

by Prometheus 6
November 10, 2003 - 11:00am.
on Race and Identity

In the comments to On Cheney, in response (I believe) to:

But what's more important is that he also knows that business is bad for war. He knows, for example, there there has never been a war between two countries that harbored McDonald's franchises. I actually think it's possible that, however counter-intuitive and risky his methods for getting it, what Dick Cheney really wants is peace.

comes this conversation:

I had always heard it that countries with the same religion rarely went to war, but it is a common theme of libertarianism and Free-Market types that no one has ever had too much of a hatred for someone that could make them a buck in trade.

It is really hard to hold a deep hatred for someone who can make your life better if you would simply get along with them.

the long history of Jim Crow and segregation shows that people are often all too willing to put ideas of racial purity above what would seem to be their economic self-interest (i.e., not allowing black people in their store or restaurant even though they could make money from selling to them).

…and because this isn't about Cheney I'm responding to both with a new post.

To begin with, it's pretty easy to hate someone from whom you'd receive benefit if you could just get along, even if you're fully aware that you would benefit. It's difficult to ACT OPENLY on that hatred. Black people in the Jim Crow South made huge amounts of money for white people that hated them. And they hated those white people right back.

See, not allowing Black folks to eat in your establishment wasn't an obstacle to selling them food. Racists had a monopoly on EVERYTHING.

And let's be clear: racism is about power;specifically, it's about collective, as opposed to individual, power; precisely, it's about economic power. The base individual emotions are tools by which it is implemented. Hatred, greed, paternalism (and this one is pointed directly at folks who 'want to end affirmative action because it sends the message to black people they can't get ahead without help'…your concern for Black people is a transparently thin cover for self interest), self interest and raw, amoral profiteering are appealed to or supported by racism.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.prometheus6.org/trackback/2222

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by Al-Muhajabah (not verified) on November 10, 2003 - 1:19pm.

My point was that people often do things that according to the theories of libertarians are not in their greatest interest, because they have other things that they consider to be even more important. I hope my example was not so far off base as to void the point I was trying to make. Libertarians seem to think that the market will solve everything. It might, if people acted how they're supposed to in theory, but people don't. They behave in ways that go contrary to the theory.This seems to echo an earlier discussion here (inspired I think by Arthur Silber) about "atomist libertarians".

Submitted by P6 (not verified) on November 10, 2003 - 8:07pm.

I know the point. I just felt the characterization of racism was off enough that I needed to comment on it.Arthur Silber really did explain the difference between what I've called big-L and little-l libertarians well. By his explanation I may actually be a "contextual libertarian," but libertarians wouldn't believe that.

Submitted by Al-Muhajabah (not verified) on November 11, 2003 - 3:50am.

Sorry about that. I'll see if I can scrap that example in favor of a better one.

Submitted by Al-Muhajabah (not verified) on November 11, 2003 - 4:13am.

Just want to add that my original comment was not meant to be a statement of what I think racism is all about, because as you pointed out, the institution of racism in this country is a lot more than just the whites-only establishments that I mentioned.I was mostly trying to recast the example used by Phelps in different terms to make a point. It seems to have brought more confusion than clarity so I will try to find a better way in the future of expressing the same idea.

Submitted by P6 (not verified) on November 11, 2003 - 4:33am.

Relax, sis. It's not that you didn't make the point you intended to. It's that I'm not above using my friends' statements to make a point of my own ;-). That, and that starting new topics is my way of keepint the conversational tree properly pruned.

Submitted by Al-Muhajabah (not verified) on November 11, 2003 - 11:50am.

OK then :-)I like Arthur Silber's "contextual libertarianism". A few years ago I spent a lot of time looking into libertarianism because parts of it are very appealing to me. But eventually it was the atomistic nature of most libertarian thought that turned me away from it. I still have some libertarian sympathies, but I don't find myself agreeing with most of the libertarians in the blogosphere.I also found some stuff on "progressive libertarianism" which sounded quite interesting.

Submitted by P6 (not verified) on November 11, 2003 - 2:58pm.

I think we ALL have libertarian sympathies, which is why it spread like wildfire thru the net. That and the Gibsonian illusion that there's no gravity in here…not to mention the illsion that there's an "in here" in here. One would think the fate of Napster would have put those dreams to rest.

Submitted by phelps (not verified) on November 11, 2003 - 5:50pm.

Libertarians seem to think that the market will solve everything. It might, if people acted how they're supposed to in theory, but people don't.

To mangle a Winnie line, "The Free Market is the worst economic system in the world, except for all the others that have been tried."I attribute the libertarian leanings of the internet to the demographics of the net. Liberty is inherently elitist, because freedom requires responsibility, and responsibility is hard. People who are above the median will be better off with a meritocracy, which is what libertarianism envisions, and since internet access (especially in the late 90s) was a select group, it leaned towards a meritocracy-based philosophy.As for "progressive libertarianism", that sounds to me like censored pornography or non-alcoholic beer: an inherent oxymoron.

Submitted by P6 (not verified) on November 11, 2003 - 8:16pm.

To mangle a Winnie line, "The Free Market is the worst economic system in the world, except for all the others that have been tried."

The problem comes when you try to apply that economic policy to social and political stuff.

Submitted by Phelps (not verified) on November 13, 2003 - 12:51am.

All social and political problems are economical problems at the root.

Submitted by Al-Muhajabah (not verified) on November 13, 2003 - 1:03am.

Unfortunately, Phelps, history does not bear out your claims.

Submitted by P6 (not verified) on November 13, 2003 - 1:55pm.

Phelps:That's like saying all medical problems are chemical at root.Try telling that to a guy with a broken leg.

Submitted by phelps (not verified) on November 13, 2003 - 4:38pm.

No, it isn't the same. It is like saying that all deaths are caused by lack of cellular respiration. It isn't always the quickest way to "solve" a medical problem, but it is the root problem.As for history not bearing me out, give me a hardball and see how I do.

Submitted by P6 (not verified) on November 13, 2003 - 5:52pm.

It is like saying that all deaths are caused by lack of cellular respirationIf you're talking amoeba. But it's not worth arguing with you. I think we've come to terms on racial issues, you and I. But politically, economically, socially, you keep making me more and more comfortable with NOT being a Libertarian.